You provide interesting reading during finals week. That is, however, as close as I'd like to get to y'all. Please keep your insane arguments on your side of the country. There are too many guns out west anyway - the type of vitriol I've seen in this post would have gotten someone shot a long time ago. Also - both the Yankees and the Red Sox suck, so we've all gotten real tired of that debate too.

Dear East Coasters, You provide interesting reading during finals week. That is, however, as close as I'd like to get to y'all. Please keep your insane arguments on your side of the country. There are too many guns out west anyway - the type of vitriol I've seen in this post would have gotten someone shot a long time ago. Also - both the Yankees and the Red Sox suck, so we've all gotten real tired of that debate too. xoxo, The West

Thanks for the suggestions Mobes. I will. I'll also enjoy being within driving distance of Red Rocks, J Tree, Colorado, Moab, and Zion. I'll enjoy the trad routes at Moab, the limitless potential in the Swell, the desert towers, and the slot canyons when I don't feel like climbing. I'll enjoy the public land, wide-open spaces, not having to top-rope half my climbs, and not having to deal with individual landowners and psycho bolt-choppers.

If you ever get tired of pale skin and nasally accents you're more than welcome to come crash my couch. I promise I won't even mention the Book of Mormon to you.

As a follow up to my post a few months ago I want to thank the climber who graciously showed me around CT and took me to some very well done areas. The areas I went to were nowhere close to being overbolted and a couple of the areas were mixed which to me shows there was thought put into the whole process. A couple of routes were sporty enough to make many people soil their britches on an on-sight attempt.

The segregation of climbers in the NE part of the country is sad and silly at the same time. My take on it is because of one man, who put himself on the highest pedestal of them all, the NE now have a ton of beginner "trad" or "TR" climbers that just haven't experienced the flow of a good lead too many times. Maybe someday I'll fully understand the attitudes of many NE climbers but for now I'll be happy living in CO where most climbers just climb and don't trash other peoples style of climbing. In my experiences I have found that the best peeps to climb with are well rounded climbers and most of the people I don't like to climb with are usually one dimensional bores that don't ever try anything new.

And to the kid in Provo, give us all a break please. Being an internet jerkoff may seem funny to you but really most people are laughing at you, not with you. You live in Provo for Gods sake. Now stop scaring your mommy with those crazy daredevil stunts you are pulling in your profile pic Austin.

"Violence against the rock" is not usually fine, although that would not be my choice of words. I prefer "minimum impact", or perhaps the 70s term "clean climbing". But these phrases do not give any guidance about when the advantages of bolts are worth the impact and when they are not. It is a value judgement where we have seen there is often disagreement. "Violence against the rock" in your context probably means you feel that chopping bolts impacts the rock, but the original drilling does not impact the rock? Both impact the rock, and in my view the drilling usually impacts it more, although some chopping jobs are a mess, and if you argue that chopping "causes" more drilling, it becomes hard to follow the chain of causation after awhile.... My usual summary is that if you drill and think there is a good likelihood it will be chopped, you are starting an impact process which may not yield any benefits (only costs). Yes, unthinkable. Call him whatever, violence is not acceptable. To be more specific, violence may be acceptable if defending yourself or others against violence, or when defending your personal property. None of these are at risk when we are talking about bolting/antibolting. And it is better to have the police involved - they and laws exist in part so we can avoid being involved directly in violence. The antibolters in CT do not threaten violence against the bolters. Threatening violence makes you look like a jerk. I think you know "might does not make right". (Hank, no doubt you are just tired of hearing the complaining; too bad there are no quick fixes, though).

I guess you weren't there when Ken assaulted Claude in front of his children at the main cliff. Your blind defense of this guy is comical, but I guess it should be expected...

I guess you weren't there when Ken assaulted Claude in front of his children at the main cliff. Your blind defense of this guy is comical, but I guess it should be expected...

LOL, who else on Mtn Project or the internet period has spent as much time as Clint documenting a cliff that he has admittedly never climbed? I'd say that action speaks for itself. mountainproject.com/v/fire-wal...

So, what's your point? Just because someone climbs something 10,000 times...that's remarkable. Someone who leads that route once is equally remarkable. There are a lot of old guys leading hard routes.

In any event, definately Ken is a polarizing figure, which is unfortunate. However, what he has brought to climbing in the region, his spirit and his staunch traditional ethics, in my opinion, is something to be respected and has kept Connecticut a traditional area, which in my opinion and as an outsider, is fine by me.

However, without getting into a long historical discussion, the devices he used to promote his traditional ethics, in my opinion, has scared the North East. After being brought to justice, he deserved the legal punishment for his past actions in Western Massachusetts.

Hey! I was just reiterating blissab's point that badassery and destructive tendencies can and often do come together! I'm not the one who brought this thread back from the dead...no need to cut me deep with the "T" word!

I think we should continue killing all the living trees at the top of connecticut's cliffs by people setting up anchors off of them. The treeline at ragged is what like 100ft back now? Now damaging non-living rock by putting a few bolted anchors in at the tops of cliffs. That is madness.

I personally don't find the need to bring 100-150-feet of static line to Ragged or many other cliffs in Connecticut.

Many of the routes should be led or if TR'd...can be easily set-up with equalized gear anchors. As a classic example, Broadway and YMC has both bomber TR gear anchors, that many people overlook and never use. Instead, there often exists the spider's web of static line.

The factured nature and freeze thaw characteristics of the top of many Connecticut cliffs probably do not lend themselves to permanent TR anchor bolts, which would probably be chopped anyway.

I feel sorry for those two poor little trees that just happen to have the unfortunate luck of being located 50-feet back of and above Broadway and YMC.

The fractured nature and freeze thaw characteristics of the top of many Connecticut cliffs probably do not lend themselves to permanent TR anchor bolts, which would probably be chopped anyway.

So other cliffs throughout the world don't have freeze thaw cycles? I honestly think statements like this come from drinking the koolaid and just regurgitating information. Sure there might be loose blocks but there are plenty of location on the top of Ragged or any other trap rock crag that would easily and securely take, a deep bolt, a large stake or staple.

EDIT: Dammit there I go again contributing to this damn thread that's supposed to be dead now...

So other cliffs throughout the world don't have freeze thaw cycles? I honestly think statements like this come from drinking the koolaid and just regurgitating information. Sure there might be loose blocks but there are plenty of location on the top of Ragged or any other trap rock crag that would easily and securely take, a deep bolt, a large stake or staple. EDIT: Dammit there I go again contributing to this damn thread that's supposed to be dead now...

I think having a blanket of vegetation up to the cliffs edge might actually help with the freeze thaw cycle on the rock. its probably too late now unless a few tons of topsoil(that has eroded away) were carried up to the tops of the cliffs and planted. I agree that its chossy, its rare when I top out on a climb on traprock that I find a bomber gear anchor.

So other cliffs throughout the world don't have freeze thaw cycles? I honestly think statements like this come from drinking the koolaid and just regurgitating information. Sure there might be loose blocks but there are plenty of location on the top of Ragged or any other trap rock crag that would easily and securely take, a deep bolt, a large stake or staple. EDIT: Dammit there I go again contributing to this damn thread that's supposed to be dead now...

Kool-aid and regurgitation...sounds like you have visited Jonestown also.

Be nice...in my opinion, a permanent anchor system at Ragged would be a liability that would have to be carefully considered, by the Ragged Mountain Foundation.

You don't agree that the basalt in Central Connecticut is some of the most fractured rock, from a geological standpoint?

As a civil conversation, does climbing have to be convenient? Do climbers have a responsibility to learn how to create anchors in less that convenient situations?

You may think that this thread may be dead, however, the condition in Central Connecticut is quite alive.

Be nice...in my opinion, a permanent anchor system at Ragged would be a liability that would have to be carefully considered, by the Ragged Mountain Foundation.

It could be or it could also not be a liability. One thing I could tell you with certainty, they would provide for better conservation of the natural resources. We have liability insurance at the RMF and the Access Fund is now capable of providing liability coverage through one of their programs so the liability issues can theoretically be mitigated.

You don't agree that the basalt in Central Connecticut is some of the most fractured rock, from a geological standpoint? It is fractured especially along the top edges where' it's exposed to all the elements but there are plenty of areas along the tops of all of these cliffs, along all the routes, that a 1' hole could be drilled and an anchor installed in solid rock. That said a lot of the GEAR placements suck because they are along these fractures and once they're there they're mostly weak because of the geology.

As a civil conversation, does climbing have to be convenient? Do climbers have a responsibility to learn how to create anchors in less that convenient situations?

No and yes if they want to live. We are not talking about convenience anchors we are talking about anchors for the sake of conservation. In philosophy, examples always help so here goes, they could be the most PITA anchors to use and I would still support them over trees. That's why those damn trees rather then gear get used for Broadway all the time... convenience.

You may think that this thread may be dead, however, the condition in Central Connecticut is quite alive.

Hahaha - people in ICU are alive too, no ;-)? CT...Sedated, bleeding, and being dragged by a dying horse into the future maybe.

If you think differently, I have a test for you: What was the last hard (notable or not) FA that was put up in Central Conn (not at the fire wall)? What publications covered it? In what year was the first 5.14 trad or sport lead in central CT and how many repeats does it have? What top climbers have travel to CT to try this test piece? I think the point has been made no?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I live out West and plan to keep it that way. I keep getting frustrated though at the willful mischaracterization from Blissab and others of the proposed anchors as "convenience anchors". I haven't seen a SINGLE argument for placing bolts because it's too "inconvenient" to use the trees. The ONLY argument that the pro-anchor crowd keeps making is that they want to keep the trees alive and bolts are the way to do it.

Blissab - quit with the straw men already. Either respond to the suggestion that bolts be placed to KEEP TREES ALIVE or stay away from the thread. Arguing against a statement that NOBODY IS MAKING is getting old. Do you have an alternative to keep the trees alive or do you place CT "ethics" above that concept? If you'd rather keep the areas "trad" than keep the trees alive, that's fine...but own up to it instead of arguing against nobody.

It could be or it could also not be a liability. One thing I could tell you with certainty, they would provide for better conservation of the natural resources. We have liability insurance at the RMF and the Access Fund is now capable of providing liability coverage through one of their programs so the liability issues can theoretically be mitigated. You don't agree that the basalt in Central Connecticut is some of the most fractured rock, from a geological standpoint? It is fractured especially along the top edges where' it's exposed to all the elements but there are plenty of areas along the tops of all of these cliffs, along all the routes, that a 1' hole could be drilled and an anchor installed in solid rock. That said a lot of the GEAR placements suck because they are along these fractures and once they're there they're mostly weak because of the geology. As a civil conversation, does climbing have to be convenient? Do climbers have a responsibility to learn how to create anchors in less that convenient situations? No and yes if they want to live. We are not talking about convenience anchors we are talking about anchors for the sake of conservation. In philosophy examples always help so here goes, they could be the most PITA anchors to use and I would still support them over trees. That's why those damn trees rather then gear get used for Broadway all the time... convenience. You may think that this thread may be dead, however, the condition in Central Connecticut is quite alive. Hahaha - people in ICU are alive too, no ;-)? Sedated, bleeding, and tied to the back of a dying horse maybe too...

I am not necessarily for or against bolted anchors at the top of Ragged. I strongly agree with the ethical considerations at Ragged to protect the environment, that is why I personally try, as best as I can, to use TR gear anchors or just lead.

However, if permanent TR anchors are placed there, careful consideration should be made by the RMF and not placed in a haphazard fashion, by outside elements. Or for that matter, chopped by outside elements.

As a representative of the RMF, my question to you specifically, CaptainMo, is this:

1. Why are there not at this time permanent TR anchors in-place at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain?

2. Why has not the original fixed protection, that were previously vandalized, not been replaced at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain to allow for the potential for lead ascents (understanding that these still will be bold leads)?

As someone who enjoys climbing in Connecticut, I believe this discussion should continue. The balance of power may be shifting in Central Connecticut and clear thinking and sensitivities should be employed.

Just this summer the RMF in fact held a meeting regarding this very subject. At least there has been some discussion...maybe in the future there will actually be a resolution.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I live out West and plan to keep it that way. I keep getting frustrated though at the willful mischaracterization from Blissab and others of the proposed anchors as "convenience anchors". I haven't seen a SINGLE argument for placing bolts because it's too "inconvenient" to use the trees. The ONLY argument that the pro-anchor crowd keeps making is that they want to keep the trees alive and bolts are the way to do it. Blissab - quit with the straw men already. Either respond to the suggestion that bolts be placed to KEEP TREES ALIVE or stay away from the thread. Arguing against a statement that NOBODY IS MAKING is getting old. Do you have an alternative to keep the trees alive or do you place CT "ethics" above that concept? If you'd rather keep the areas "trad" than keep the trees alive, that's fine...but own up to it instead of arguing against nobody.

I do have a dog in this fight. I am specifically commenting on the "here and now". You are missing my point.

At this point in time there are no fixed anchors at the top of the Main Face of Ragged Mountain. I am also concerned, as others are, about the conservation issues regarding the top of the cliff. I find the amount of static line used to set-up YMC and Broadway ridiculus and irresponsible, when there suitable gear anchor available for these routes.

That said, I would support thoughtful placement of fixed TR anchors at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain by the RMF. But up to now, there has been no movement in this direction and the top cliff environment is still taking the hit. I personally try, as best as I can, to lead or set-up TR gear anchors (this is not an unreasonable approach), until such time, as the RMF determines a proper course of action.

I my discussion here, I guess I am questioning, when this course of action will take place?

As a representative of the RMF, my question to you specifically, CaptainMo, is this: 1. Why are there not at this time permanent TR anchors in-place at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain? 2. Why has not the original fixed protection, that were previously vandalized, not been replaced at the Main Face of Ragged Mountain to allow for the potential for lead ascents (understanding that these still will be bold leads)?

A new found rep, yes... So here goes: It is my understanding that a personal dispute between KN and a previous board member/members greatly effected the conservation easement in which the RMF acquired Ragged. That argument was a headache to the Berlin Land Trust and since KN was (and is)good friends with members of the BLT board, he influenced the language put into the deal to what HE wanted, not what was right for conservation of a climbing area. This soiled language applies to bolts, trails, and effects many conservation minded improvements.

This is one of the great problems that confronts the RMF actually... we purchased a 'climbing area' but we are bound to keep it a conservation area and the two don't play well together unless you have the right tools (I believe many of those tools were stripped out by the easement). There has also not been the will or direction at the RMF to tackle these harder more involved items that I know of... The new board I think is a huge change from the past and we're really working hard to identify and communicate the efforts and challenges. Brien (RMF Pres) has done a great job I think of getting a great group of climbers who represent the broad spectrum of climbers present in CT. As for historical gear - this came to vote before I was on the Board - but it is my understanding that there is some hesitation after KN smashed and vandalized holds on Vanishing Point but that the restoration was going to take place slowly over time but would be occurring. I believe some pieces have already been replaced but I'm not sure.

This fall I did a tour of Ragged with the Pres. of the Berlin Land Trust and Brien, the RMF pres. and I really did give it my all to pick out all the conservation issues. A lot of it stems from the Metacomet Trail, and a fair amount from climbers. There were in some areas up to approx 6" of soil erosion along the trail and plenty of trampled climber trails to any decent sized tree. I think a lot of people will look at the top and say it's always looked that way but who was around in the 1920's when it was fresh? Also of concern is that the situation is not static or recovering but deteriorating. I personally think sections of the top of Main Cliff should be roped off and closed to climbing and let the vegetation attempt to re-grow. That might help folks 'recognize' the problem.

EDIT: I'm only responding cause Bliss asked some important questions that have relevant answers. Otherwise I want this thread killed.